CategorySyria

Fact is that the highest military officer of the United States has pronounced himself clearly against Clinton’s idea of a no-fly zone over Syria which she said she would immediately enact after being president, while back in 2013 she has said about the same idea:
—A no-fly zone over Syria would mean the death of uncountable Syrians.

It is not the first time that Clinton changed her opinions so drastically, for as we all know, her husband did the same.

So Trump has just repeated what this high military officer said which in summary is:
—A no-fly zone over Syria implicitly compels the Russians to back off in Syria for protecting the Assad regime. This would clearly be a cause of WW3.

If we follow what Putin said over the last 2 years or so, this is absolutely correct and realistic as an assessment.

Also see that President Obama voiced criticism at Clinton and a no-fly zone fully identifying with the statement of the military commander as a realistic assessment of today’s political reality.

As always, the solution is easy but it’s habitual thinking, ingrained habits and grandiloquous strategies that prevent easy solution from manifesting in political life around the globe.

The United States and Nato need to declare a change of strategy in Syria to make a compromise with Russia that will have positive consequences for all parties involved. They have to back down with the intention to oust the Assad regime. That’s the only and quite easy-to-do concession they have to make in order to gain Russia’s collaboration, and it’s so much the more appealing to me as it is in full conformity with international law. Why?

To oust a regime or a sovereign state is always critical under Article II, 2 United Nations Charter for it represents an interference in the internal affairs of a foreign sovereign state. Humanitarian considerations are on a different plane, they are not under presently valid international law a cause for ousting a regime without violating the basic foundation of international law which is the principle of sovereignty.

I have clearly stated in my books that sovereignty is an outdated and peace-impeaching paradigm but it is unfortunately still our current world order.

So as this is still the basic principle of international law, Nato was from the start wrong with the idea of ousting the Assad regime and Russia was from the start right in wanting to not interfere—but they are of course not right in terms of the humanitarian agenda when it goes to practically defend that regime. Here is where Putin, too, overstepped the line.

Thus, as both parties could admit their mistakes, a basic line of cooperation is to make out on which Trump and Putin could agree. And honestly, my intuition tells me they WILL agree on that if against all the odds Trump is elected.

After five years of a brutal and senseless conflict over a quarter of a million Syrians have been killed and over half the population forced from their homes out of fear and want. Some 4.6 million people are barely existing in places that few can leave and aid cannot reach. A further 4.8 million people have fled the country. Syria today is a very different place – almost unrecognizable in parts – that will take generations to rebuild.

In the past few weeks however, we are seeing signs of momentum, fragile glimmers of hope. Fewer bombs are falling; humanitarian access has opened up in some places; negotiators from all sides are preparing to come together and talk. As humanitarians we welcome progress where it means real change.

The United Nations, NGOs and partners have seized new opportunities to reach people who have had nothing for a very long time. Despite danger and uncertainty we are trying new delivery methods, constantly trying to negotiate ways to reach people. Through regular aid and the recent deliveries to besieged towns we have managed to reach over six million people since the beginning of 2016.

However, until all parties to this conflict stop attacking civilians, schools, markets and hospitals, we will continue to press them on their obligations and hold them to account. Medical supplies and equipment are still being removed at checkpoints: this is unacceptable.

Until parties to the conflict fully open up safe, unimpeded access to everyone we will keep trying to reach civilians by all and any means possible, however challenging. We are able to reach more people now in besieged areas: but we are yet to reach one in every five besieged Syrians who urgently need help and protection.

While we are starting to get basic supplies to communities who have been cut off for months or more, it is just not enough. For example, we are extremely concerned about the situation in northern rural Homs and in Aleppo, where around 500,000 people are caught behind active frontlines. Two million people are in areas controlled by ISIL.

We and our partners remain ready to deliver assistance. The United Nations continues to work to negotiate access with all parties and to deliver aid to people across the hard-to-reach areas, including the besieged locations we have not yet been able to reach.

No one wants to see a sixth year of conflict start on 15 March. Young people across Syria need to hope and believe that their future lies in their homeland. That they will have education, healthcare, homes and jobs. That life holds more than fear, violence and hunger.

We use our collective voice to call on all parties, local and international, for this anniversary to be the last one and for the political talks to bring real peace and an end to the suffering in Syria.

New York/Geneva/Rome/Amman, 11 March 2016

The mission of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) is to mobilize and coordinate effective and principled humanitarian action in partnership with national and international actors.

Austria simply snubs the humanitarian question, so do Hungary, Macedonia, Slovakia, etc. They only consider their own welfare and have largely xenophobic populations. Politically they were always right-wing fascist regimes. Remember that Hitler was not German, but Austrian. I have studied the question now quite intensely and I am more than ever before behind Merkel. She is the only politician who sees things realistically and puts the humanitarian question first. This will benefit Germany, and is already, according to some economic surveys. In this sense, Merkel acts in the best interest of Germany but also of the EU. It is right to receive the refugees and do any possible effort to accommodate them humanly. It will pay in the long run, the economies in the EU will greatly profit. And see the relationship that is so distorted in the media. In Germany 1 Mio refugees against 90 million population, that’s not even 1 percent, and in the EU totally speaking the relation is only 0.2 percent. So the media blow this up negatively while it doesn’t need to be seen negatively. Merkel’s idea of a quota system is just and fair and should be followed.

Germany has now threatened other EU countries that if they don’t follow there will be measures against them. This is appropriate. I would suggest economic sanctions but of course they can’t be forced into compliance. This is what this minister from Austria means: the EU can break apart over these conflicts. But to repeat it there are no real conflicts because as Merkel says, we can do it *together* but if they don’t follow, Germany must do it against their will and there will be even more conflict. But I am pro a strong stance of Germany in this question for the right is on the side of those who help, not those who let refugees behind fences and endless zillions of police ‘to keep their countries clean.’ This is fascist segregational politics Hitler style, and should belong to the past. These regimes are poor and for a reason, it’s exactly because of their retarded mindset that braces for security before bracing for progress. Germany must play a strong role here to show them the rules! I hope Merkel can fight it through, for weakness has no place in this situation. The Syrian people will thank Germany one day and those anti-refugee regimes will one day get back the karmic boomerang, for they will go economically bankrupt—as soon as they step out of the EU for they get way more than they give in this situation. This is my prediction. And Greece must be helped with all our EU power, Greece is admirable in what they do and realize and therefore Germany must help Greece even more.

And my last word: if the EU breaks over the refugee question, it was meant to be, for it shows what a façade the EU is in reality. Why do you think I never wanted to work for them while I have all the qualifications? I knew it from the 70s onwards that the EU is one big money-wasting machine. Let Germany be the leader of Europe, then we got to have it right! You will see. This is what the result will be. Our economy has profited a lot from the events, last year was Germany’s strongest ever year economically since WW2, huge profits and for the first time since 1961, the main trading partner of Germany is the United States, while before it was always France. This means something … it’s a signal that Germany has reached equality standard with the USA, and this will be reflected on the political scene in the future. The United States see Germany as the most important partner in NATO for good reasons. And it’s a setback for France that they have deserved with their anti-semitism and the mess they made in the refugee camp in Calais where they drive refugees out like animals upon a court order. It’s appalling, I have no more sympathies for France.

Can we not expect private people to help the refugees to have a safe journey to Europe? They pay anyway, but to the wrong people, crooks and smugglers who are responsible for the death of many people in their shaky boats, including many children.

The Egyptian billionaire magnate Naguib Sawiris published months ago an article he wanted to buy an island near Greece to settle all the refugees there. But I haven’t heard anything so far as to the realization of that idea.

It’s perhaps not what is really good for them: they must be integrated and serve Europe for that is the justifier for not sending them back under international law. They serve a very good purpose in an aging society that needs young human capital and especially a work force, as services are generally too expensive in Europe and even in the US much cheaper (think only of barbers). To put them on an island is also dangerous for they could easily be attacked by armed right wing forces and wiped out with one single nuke.

My idea concerns the sea journey. Can this not be organized by responsible private companies who perhaps get a little aid by person transferred (let’s say 10% of the cost) for offering really cheap but safe journeys. Could that not be a profitable business? Think only of what Mohammad Yunus did in Bangladesh and now worldwide with micro credits. Everybody said it could never be profitable, and yes, it is not made to generate a profit, but it does cover all the cost, so it’s a sustainable business.